Vista SP1 faster than XP SP2 or SP3.

[devil22]

Check it out: http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,2845,2302499,00.asp

In PCMARK05, Vista kills XP, in other benchmarks it's slightly better, the same, or slightly worse, but none of the differences in the other benchmarks would be perceptible to humans. The author says basically early gaming problems with Vista were due to bad graphics drivers that have been fixed. Vista SP1 leads by enough in PCMARK05 to win overall, unless I'm missing something. Just food for thought/debate.

 

[Mithent]

That's a very good result for Vista on the gaming front; I thought it would still come out slightly slower (if only by a couple of fps), but it's not at all.

 

[Joe Average]

No real surprises here. If the guy had done the testing after a week or so of using Vista SP1 daily, I'd bet the results would have been even greater in favor of Vista by a few more percentage points due to the self-tuning that people are finally realizing Vista does over time.

But 2K8 is still faster...

 

[Menelmarar]

Problem is, XP SP1 is also very insecure compared to SP2/3..

That's a very good result for Vista on the gaming front; I thought it would still come out slightly slower (if only by a couple of fps), but it's not at all.

XP SP1 wasn't even discussed in the article...

 

[Mithent]

XP SP1 wasn't even discussed in the article...

Ah, yes, not sure how I managed that.. combination of misreading the thread title and reading another article recently which did compare XP SP1 (and RTM) to the later service packs, and all this evidently collided. Should've noticed it wasn't actually in the article, but I was skimming it for Vista SP1/XP SP3 comparisons (being the most relevant).

The other article did show XP to have 'slowed down' over service packs though!

 

[JimmiG]

Vista has been faster for me in Direct3D games. It also feels slightly snappier doing everyday tasks. It still lags behind in OpenGL however.